Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The Simple View of Reading: Is It Valid for Different Types of Alphabetic Orthographies?

Educational Psychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We present a meta-analysis to test the validity of the Simple View of Reading Gough & Tunmer (Remedial and Special Education, 7:6–10, 1986) for beginner readers of English and other, more transparent, orthographies. Our meta-analytic approach established that the relative influence of decoding and linguistic comprehension on reading comprehension is different for readers of different types of orthography during the course of early reading development. Furthermore, we identified key differences in the relations among different measures of decoding and reading comprehension between readers of English and other more transparent orthographies. We discuss the implications for reading instruction and the diagnosis of reading difficulties, as well as our theoretical understanding of how component skills influence reading comprehension level.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. An exception was made for studies that directly tested the SVR but used measures at the word- or sentence-level (Carver 1998; Conners 2009; Jarmulowicz et al. 2008; Joshi and Aaron 2000; Kendeou, Savage and van den Broek 2009; Spear-Swerling 2004; for further information, see Table 1).

  2. Some studies (see Table 1) used composite scores of measures of word and non-word decoding. These studies were grouped together with those using measures of word decoding.

  3. In most of the studies on English and more transparent orthographies (see Table 1), performance on the fluency measures was coded as the number of stimuli read correctly in a fixed period of time; in these cases, the correlation between decoding fluency and reading comprehension was positive. In the study of Proctor et al. (2006), Roch and Levorato (2009), Seigneuric and Ehrlich (2005) and Seigneuric et al. (2000), which are included in the group of studies on transparent languages, the indicator of fluency was coded as a response time measure. In these two studies, therefore, the correlation between fluency and reading comprehension was negative. In order to carry out the meta-analysis, the sign of the correlation was reversed. This change was based on the rationale that even though these studies used different coding systems, the expected direction of the correlation for both types of measures is the same at a theoretical level. In other words, children who read a higher number of words correctly in a fixed period of time, are also expected to be those who will read the words faster. Based on a similar rationale, we reversed the negative sign of the correlation between decoding accuracy and reading comprehension in the study of Seigneuric et al. (2000).

    We did not distinguish between measures of word and non-word decoding accuracy for transparent orthographies because the majority report measures of non-word, rather than single word decoding and, more importantly, for transparent orthographies the crucial distinction is between decoding accuracy and fluency (Wimmer, et al. 1998).

  4. The procedure has been applied to: Kendeou, Savage et al. (2009) (for the measure of decoding fluency), Muter et al. (2004) (for the measure of word decoding accuracy), Spear-Swerling (2004) (for measures of non-word and word decoding accuracy, decoding fluency and linguistic comprehension), which were included in the group of English studies, and de Jong and van der Leij (2002) (for measures of decoding fluency and linguistic comprehension), Hagtvet 2003 (for measures of decoding fluency and linguistic comprehension) and Roch and Levorato 2009 (for measures of decoding fluency and accuracy), which were included in the group of studies on transparent orthographies.

References

* References marked with an asterisk indicated studies included in the meta-analysis

  • * Aaron, P. G. (1991). Can reading disabilities be diagnosed without using intelligence tests? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 178–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aaron, P. G., Joshi, M., & Williams, K. A. (1999). Not all reading disabilities are alike. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 120–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Adlof, S. M., Catts, H. W., & Little, T. D. (2006). Should the simple view of reading include a fluency component? Reading and Writing, 19, 933–958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1995). Evaluation of a program to teach phonemic awareness to young children: A 2- and 3- year follow-up and a new preschool trial. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 488–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. V. (2006). Assessment matters: Issues in the measurement of reading comprehension. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 697–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cain, K., Oakhill, J. V., & Bryant, P. E. (2000). Phonological skills and comprehension failure: A test of the phonological processing deficit hypothesis. Reading and Writing, 12, 31–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Carver, R. P. (1998). Predicting reading level in gardes 1 to 6 from listening level and decoding level: Testing theory relevant to the simple view of reading. Rading and Writng: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 10, 121–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castles, A., & Nation, K. (2006). How does orthographic learning happen? In S. Andrews (Ed.), From inkmarks to ideas: Challenges and controversies about word recognition and reading (pp. 151–179). London: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catts, H., Hogan, T. P., & Fey, M. (2003). Subgrouping poor readers on the basis of reading-related abilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 151–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catts, H. W., Adlof, S. M., & Weismer, S. E. (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 278–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Chen, R. S., & Vellutino, F. R. (1997). Prediction of reading ability: A cross-validation study of the simple view of reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 29, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coltheart, M. (2005). Modelling reading: the dual-route approach. In M. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 6–23). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • * Conners, F. A. (2009). Attentional control and the simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 22, 591–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1998). What reading does for the mind. American Educator, 22, 8–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, A. E., Stanovich, K. E., & Wilson, M. R. (1990). Cognitive variation in adult college students differing in reading ability. In T. H. Carr & B. A. Levy (Eds.), Reading and its development (pp. 129–159). San Diego, CA: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutting, L. E., & Scarborough, H. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 277–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * de Jong, P. F., & van der Leij, A. (2002). Effects of phonological abilities and linguistic comprehension on the development of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 51–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Diakidoy, I.N., Stalianou. P., Karefillidou, C., Papageorgiou, P. (2005). The relationship between listening and reading comprehension of different types of texts at increasing grade levels. Reading Psychology, 26, 55–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Droop, M., & Verhoeven, L. (2003). Language proficiency and reading ability in first- and second-language learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 78–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Dryer, L. G., & Katz, L. (1992). An examination of ‘the simple view of reading’. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 41, 169–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 167–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, N. C., Natsume, I., Stavropoulou, K., Hoxhallari, L., van Daal, V. H. P., Polyzoe, N., et al. (2004). The effects of the orthographic depth on learning to read alphabetic, syllabic, and logographic scripts. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 438–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Florit, E., Levorato, M.C. & Roch, M. (2008). Verba volant, scripta manent. Cambiamenti evolutivi nella comprensione del testo scritto e orale [Verba volant, scripta manent. Developmental changes in reading and listening comprehension] Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 3, 641–662.

  • Georgiou, G., Das, J. P., & Hayward, D. (2009). Revisiting the “simple view of reading” in a group of children with poor reading comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 76–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gough, P. B., Hoover, W. A., & Peterson, C. L. (1996). Some observations on a simple view of reading. In C. Cornoldi & J. V. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties. Processes and intervention (pp. 1–13). Mahwah, N.J: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gough, P., & Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Hagtvet, B. E. (2003). Listening comprehension and reading comprehension in poor decoders: Evidence for the importance of syntactic and semantic skills as well as phonological skills. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, 505–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, M. D., & McClelland, J. L. (1979). Processing determinants of reading speed. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 108, 151–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Jarmulowicz, L., Hay, S. E., Taran, V. L., Ethington, C. A. (2008). Fitting derivational morphology into a developmental model of reading. Reading and Writing, 21, 275–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, T. C., & Kirby, J. R. (2006). The contribution of naming speed to the simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 19, 339–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Joshi, R. M., & Aaron, P. G. (2000). The component model of reading: Simple view of reading made a little more complex. Reading Psychology, 21, 85–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keenan, J. M., Betjeman, R. S., & Olson, R. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientifics studies of Reading, 12, 281–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., Wadsworth, S. J., DeFries, J. C., & Olson, R. K. (2006). Genetic and environmental influences on reading and listening comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 29, 75–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Kendeou, P., Bohn-Gettler, C., White, M. J., & van den Broek, P. (2008). Children’s inference generation across different media. Journal of Research in Reading, 31, 259–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Kendeou, P., Savage, R., & van den Broek, P. (2009). Revisiting the simple view of reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 353–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendeou, P., van den Broek, P., White, M. J., & Lynch, J. S. (2009). Predicting reading comprehension in early elementary school: The independent contributions of decoding and oral language skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 765–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirby, J., & Savage, R. S. (2008). Can the simple view deal with the complexities of reading? Literacy, 42, 75–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Lerkannen, M., Rasku-Puttonen, H., Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J. (2004). Predicting reading performance during the first and second year of primary school. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 67–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Marx, H., & Jungmann, T. (2000). Abhängigkeit der entwicklung des leseverstehens von Hörver-stehen and grundlegenden lese-fertigkeiten im grundschulalter: Eine Prüfung des simple view of reading-ansatzes [Dependency of reading comprehension development on listening and basic reading skills. An examination of the simple view of reading]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 32, 81–93.

  • Megherbi, H., Seigneuric, A., & Ehrlich, M. F. (2006). Reading comprehension in 1st and 2nd grade children: Contribution of decoding and language comprehension. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21, 135–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, K., & Brady, S. (2001). Correlates of early reading performance in a transparent orthography. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 14, 757–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M. J., & Stevenson, J. (2004). Phonemes, rimes, vocabulary, and grammatical skills as a foundation of early reading development: Evidence from a longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 40, 665–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nation, K., & Norbury, C. F. (2005). Why reading comprehension fails: Insights from developmental disorders. Topics in Language Disorders, 25, 21–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (1998). Semantic processing skills and the development of word recognition: Evidence from children with reading comprehension difficulties. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 85–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (1999). Developmental differences in sensitivity to semantic relations among good and poor comprehenders: Evidence from semantic priming. Cognition, 70, 81–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Neuhaus, G. F., Roldan, L. W., Boulware-Goodan, R., Swank, P. R. (2006). Parsimonious reading models: Identifying teachable subskills. Reading Psychology, 27, 73–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oakhill, J. V. & Cain, K. (2011). The precursors of reading comprehension and word reading in young readers: Evidence from a four-year longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading (in press).

  • Oakhill, J. V., Cain, K., & Bryant, P. E. (2003). The dissociation of word reading and text comprehension: Evidence for component skills. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 443–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Ouellette, G. & Beers, A. (2010). A not-so-simple view of reading: How oral vocabulary and visual-word recognition complicate the story. Reading and Writing, 23, 189–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paris, S. G., Carpenter, R. D., Paris, A. H., & Hamilton, E. E. (2005). Spurious and genuine correlates of children’s reading comprehension. In S. G. Stahl (Ed.), Children’s reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 131–160). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pazzaglia, F., Cornoldi, C., & Tressoldi, P. E. (1993). Learning to read: Evidence on the distinction between decoding and comprehension skills. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 8, 247–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading Ability. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • * Proctor, C. P., Carlo, M., August, D., & Snow, C. (2006). The intriguing role of Spanish language vocabulary knowledge in predicting English reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 159–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a research and development program in reading comprehension. Washington, DC: RAND.

    Google Scholar 

  • * Roch, M. & Levorato, M. C. (2009). Simple view of reading in Down syndrome: The role of listening comprehension and reading skills. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 2, 206–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savage, R. S. (2006). Reading comprehension is not always the product of nonsense word decoding and linguistic comprehension: Evidence from teenagers who are extremely poor readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 143–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Sears, S., & Keogh, B. (1993). Predicting reading performance using the Slingerland Procedures. Annals of Dyslexia, 43, 78–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Seigneuric, A., & Ehrlich, M. F. (2005). Contribution of working memory capacity to children’s reading comprehension. A longitudinal investigation. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 18, 617–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Seigneuric, A., Ehrlich, M. F., Oakhill, J., & Yuill, N. (2000). Working memory resources and children’s reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 13, 81–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seymour, P. H. K., Aro, M., & Erskine, J. M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 143–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Share, D. L. (2008). On the anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: The perils of overreliance on an “outlier” orthography. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 584–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snowling, M. J. (2000). Dyslexia (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • * Sparks, R., Patton, J., Granschow, l., & Humbach, N. (2009). Long-term cross-linguistic transfer of skills from L1 to L2. Language Learning, 59, 203–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Spear-Swerling, L. (2004). Fourth graders’ performance on a state-mandated assessment involving two different measures of reading comprehension. Reading Psychology, 25, 121–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Spear-Swerling, L. (2006). Children’s reading comprehension and oral reading fluency in easy test. Reading and Writing, 19, 199–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Spooner, A., Baddeley, A., & Gathercole, S. (2004). Can reading accuracy and comprehension be separated in the Nale Analysis of Reading Ability? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 187204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, M., Stainthorp, R., & Snowling, M. (2008). Literacy as a complex activity: Deconstructing the simple view of reading. Literacy, 42, 59–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Su, Y., & Reeve, J. (2011). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intervention programs designed to support autonomy. Educational Psychology Review, 23, 159–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • * Tilstra, J., McMaster, K., van den Broek, P., Kendeou, P., & Rapp, D. (2009). Simple but complex: Components of the simple view of reading across grade levels. Journal of Research in Reading, 32, 383–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J., & Scanlon, D. M. (2004). Specific reading disability (dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 2–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vellutino, F. R., Tunmer, W. E., Jaccard, J. J., & Chen, R. (2007). Components of reading ability: Multivariate evidence for a convergent skills model. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 3–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wimmer, H. (1993). Charactheristics of developmental Dyslexia in a regular writing system. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 14, 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wimmer, H. (2006). Don’t neglect reading fluency! Developmental Science, 9, 447–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wimmer, H., Mayringer, H., & Landerl, K. (1998). Poor reading: A deficit in skill-automatization or a phonological deficit? Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 321–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 3–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The review presented in this paper was conducted during a 4-month study visit to Lancaster University, supported by a grant awarded to the first author from the Experimental Psychology Society. We thank Dr. Maja Roch for her constructive comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elena Florit.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Florit, E., Cain, K. The Simple View of Reading: Is It Valid for Different Types of Alphabetic Orthographies?. Educ Psychol Rev 23, 553–576 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9175-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9175-6

Keywords

Navigation